IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 315 OF 202^ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,Civil Revision Petition against order dated 17.12.2024 in I.A. No. 368 of 2024 in R.C.C. No. 11 of 2018 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam Between: 1. Appabathula Achary, S/o. Varahalu, Aged about 67 years, Occ Proprietor to Sri Venkateswara Boring Works, D.No. 22-16-34, Bokka Veedhi, Visakhapatnam. 2. Sri Venkateswara Boring Works,, Rep. by its Proprietor, Appabathula Achary, S/o. Varahalu Aged about 67 years, D.No. 22-16-34, Bokka Veedhi, Visakhapatnam. ...PETITIONER(S) AND Smt. Kona Ramani Rao, W/o. Late. Arjun Rao, Aged about 79 years, Occ Household, R/o. D.No. 9-39-2, Petapuram Colony, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in R.C.C. No. 11 of 2018 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the CRP Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. S V R SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: 1 APHC010055502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 315/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Appabathula Achary and Others AND ...RESPONDENT Smt Kona Ramani Rao Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1 .S V R SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent; 1. The Court made the following order: The respondent herein had filed R.C.C.No.11 of 2018 against the petitioners herein for evicting the petitioners from the property. The Rent Controller-curn-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam, after giving opportunity, to the petitioners, had forfeited the right of the petitioners to adduce evidence. Thereafter, the matter was posted for hearing arguments, on 25.11.2024, on that day the petitioner filed I.A.No.368 of 2024 for reopening his evidence. The ground for reopening the evidence was that the petitioner had been on a pilgrimage around South India for two months and was able to contact his advocate only a week back i.e. 25.11.2024. 2. 2 % The respondent had filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was very much available in the city and had been present for every adjournment. The respondent also pointed out that, on 19.06.2024 an adjournment was taken by the petitioners on the ground that there was a marriage in the family and an adjournment was needed as he could not meet his advocate. 3. The Rent Controller, after hearing both sides by an Order, dated 17.12.2024 had observed that no material has been placed before the Rent Controller, by the petitioners, to demonstrate that the petitioners was in fact on a South India pilgrimage for two months. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 5. In the absence of any material being placed before the Rent Controller, it cannot be said that the Order of the Rent Controller is not in accordance with law or requires any interference. 6. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Visakhapatnam, 2. One CC to Sri. S V R Subrahmanyam Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies w HIGH COURT DATED:21/02/2025 ORDER CRP No.315 OF 2025 2 0 2 AM ?C?5 Current Seetion c> DISMISSING THE CRP WITH OUT COSTS